Skip to content

Pixalate’s Mobile Ad Fraud Series: App ‘Spoofing’ could cost advertisers $38MM in 2022 on purported Google and Apple app store apps

Gaming apps and utilities appear to be common targets of app spoofing across iOS and Android devices.

LONDON, Dec. 2, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Pixalate today released the October 2022 Mobile Ad Fraud Series, highlighting unique forms of invalid traffic (IVT), inclusive of “ad fraud” — across the mobile open programmatic advertising marketplace. This month, Pixalate took a look at “app spoofing” — a specific form of sophisticated invalid traffic (SIVT) — of apps from the Google Play Store and Apple App Store.

App spoofing — which is also referred to as app misrepresentation or app laundering — occurs when one app masquerades as another app. For example, an advertiser might think they are buying a spot on the Hulu app, but in truth the ad appeared on a lesser-known app. App spoofing has been central to several large-scale ad fraud schemes, including discoveries by Pixalate such as matryoshka and Megacast.

Key Findings:

  • App spoofing rates in Mobile are relatively lower than rates on CTV, which can possibly be attributed to more difficult end-to-end implementation of app-ads.txt on CTV platforms.
  • Tumblr, WordScapes, and MyFitnessPal were among the biggest targets of mobile app spoofing in October.
  • Gaming apps appear to be the category most targeted on iOS devices.
  • Utilities appears to be the category most targeted on Android devices.

October 2022 – Top 20 Spoofed Mobile Apps on Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android platforms

Across September & October 2022, Pixalate measured an app spoofing rate of 0.78% across all open programmatic ad impressions purportedly served on mobile devices. This is lower than what was observed on CTV devices, likely attributed to more difficult end-to-end implementation of app-ads.txt on CTV platforms. It is important to note that the 0.78% rate is based on app spoofing IVT as defined by the Media Rating Council, Inc. (MRC) and does not include impressions in which app spoofing was accompanied by other superseding IVT types (eg, Data-center, proxy IVT, etc.).

Pixalate compiled the 20 mobile apps from the Apple and Google app stores that were most affected by app spoofing in October 2022. Because app spoofing varies by region, we have also broken the report down by region (North America, APAC, LATAM, EMEA). This is important because the same app might have different IVT levels in different regions. Clients can use our tools to determine the most appropriate mode of presentation and path of action.

Click here to download the full list with more details.

For more information, please visit the Mobile App Spoofing article in our knowledge base.

About Pixalate

Pixalate is the market-leading fraud protection, privacy, and compliance analytics platform for Connected TV (CTV) and Mobile Advertising. We work 24/7 to protect your reputation and grow your media value. Pixalate offers the only system of coordinated solutions across display, app, video, and CTV for better detection and elimination of ad fraud. Pixalate is an MRC-accredited service for the detection and filtration of sophisticated invalid traffic (SIVT) across desktop and mobile web, mobile in-app, and CTV advertising. www.pixalate.com

Disclaimer

The content of this Ad Fraud Series Report reflects Pixalate’s opinions with respect to the factors that Pixalate believes may be useful to the digital media industry. Pixalate’s opinions are just that, opinions, which means that they are neither facts nor guarantees; and this Report is not intended to impugn the standing or reputation of any entity, person or app, but instead, to report findings and apparent trends pertaining to apps in the Apple App and Google Play mobile stores. Per the MRC, “‘Fraud’ is not intended to represent fraud as defined in various laws, statutes and ordinances or as conventionally used in US Court or other legal proceedings, but rather a custom definition strictly for advertising measurement purposes.” Also per the MRC, “‘Invalid Traffic’ is defined generally as traffic that does not meet certain ad serving quality or completeness criteria, or otherwise does not represent legitimate ad traffic that should be included in measurement counts. Among the reasons why ad traffic may be deemed invalid is it is a result of non-human traffic (spiders, bots, etc.), or activity designed to produce fraudulent traffic.”

SOURCE Pixalate

.

Tags: